How can a modern batsman be considered better than Don Bradman?

[TalhaSyed]

If it was so easy why was no one averaging more than 50-60? Does it not strike you as curious that in every era post WWII, the averages have remained almost totally constant? The best players in EVERY ERA averaged the same (approximately) because advantages and disadvantages of all eras have cancelled each other out and produced a level playing field. Only one man has defied this constant. You have zero counter to this.

You would be surprised

The guy lives in a world of his own where he is dumbing the whole thing down to "bowling (and cricket in general) as 'evolved' over the years so scoring runs today is a lot harder today then it has ever been"

 

[Cric1234]

The next best Australian batsman during Bradmans career averaged 51 it shows the Australians faced the best bowling overall.

 

[Cric1234]

A famous batsman called Gary Sobers overlapped Bradmans career initially struggling against some of the bowlers from Bradmans era before the big triple hundred against Pakistan kick started his career.
Overall he averaged 57 and overlapped with Richards career this shows a lot the standard of cricket overall had a small changes and nowhere near big enough to bring down Bradman.

 

[Tusker]

If it was so easy why was no one averaging more than 50-60? Does it not strike you as curious that in every era post WWII, the averages have remained almost totally constant? The best players in EVERY ERA averaged the same (approximately) because advantages and disadvantages of all eras have cancelled each other out and produced a level playing field. Only one man has defied this constant. You have zero counter to this.

You forgot to mention the main requirement .... which is that I pretend that the Cricket World that consisted of mainly 2 Countries presents no different competition than a Cricket World of Atleast 5-8 Cricket Playing nations with playing conditions that are far more varied than Bradman ever played against. There is more to it and I can't be bothered to type it up all again but bottomline is yeah I know I refuse to agree with your requirement to keep Pretending that everything is same but hey I will wait till you find a logical reason that explains why I need to keep pretending. So yeah I have "ZERO" counter.

This is the point in the discussion where you will find that ridicule, insults and ad-hominem could come handy.

 

[Cric1234]

Bradman faced all conditions due to uncovered pitches which ranged from flat to green to wet.
The ball could swing and spin round corners at times which made medium to medium fast bowlers hard to play in these conditions.
Modern day swing bowlers on green tops become hard to play it was similar then with some wickets being wet and unplayable.

 

[Cric1234]

More countries means harder playing conditions is a false assumption 90% of bowlers in modern day are no better than average.
Also facing trundlers and below average spin bowling in FC cricket still no modern batsman can average more than 60-65.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

You forgot to mention the main requirement .... which is that I pretend that the Cricket World that consisted of mainly 2 Countries presents no different competition than a Cricket World of Atleast 5-8 Cricket Playing nations with playing conditions that are far more varied than Bradman ever played against. There is more to it and I can't be bothered to type it up all again but bottomline is yeah I know I refuse to agree with your requirement to keep Pretending that everything is same but hey I will wait till you find a logical reason that explains why I need to keep pretending. So yeah I have "ZERO" counter.

That is a pointless counter. Even in that "less competitive" environment which had fewer nations, why could NOT A SINGLE OTHER BATSMAN from the time manage to not break the 50-60 barrier and go anywhere near Bradman? ATGs of the time like Hammond and Hutton and Compton and Headley all averaged approximately the same as modern ATGs. Shouldn't anyone have done what Bradman did if the fewer countries meant it was easier?

 

[Sachin136]

That is a pointless counter. Even in that "less competitive" environment which had fewer nations, why could NOT A SINGLE OTHER BATSMAN from the time manage to not break the 50-60 barrier and go anywhere near Bradman? ATGs of the time like Hammond and Hutton and Compton and Headley all averaged approximately the same as modern ATGs. Shouldn't anyone have done what Bradman did if the fewer countries meant it was easier?

No one is arguing that Bradman was not much better than other batsman of that era. That is obvious. The comparison is batsman from later generations.

The whole argument is that both the batsmen and bowlers of that era were inferior, and Bradman outperforming them doesn't say much by itself.

 

[Cric1234]

It's true Sobers is similar in batting ability to Jimmy Anderson the Burnley Lara after all and Hammond had the batting ability of Jason Gillespie even Hammond didn't score a double hundred against Bangladesh remember so we are doing a dis service to Gillespie here.

 

[Sachin136]

It's true Sobers is similar in batting ability to Jimmy Anderson the Burnley Lara after all and Hammond had the batting ability of Jason Gillespie even Hammond didn't score a double hundred against Bangladesh remember so we are doing a dis service to Gillespie here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rrx2nrgev4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4jLdJiovyM

Doesn't look any better than Gillespie if you ask me.

 

[Cric1234]

Sehwag has a worse technique than a tailender some would say but averages 50 in test cricket.
Jack Hobbs at least moved his feet even Gillespie would struggle to get in line!

 

[R0H1T]

Sehwag has a worse technique than a tailender some would say but averages 50 in test cricket.
Jack Hobbs at least moved his feet even Gillespie would struggle to get in line!

Safe to say that you're opinion can be disregarded as a joke when you say Sehwag had a poor technique.

There's a reason why bodyline was condemned, it did bring Don down to his true level, btw how many balls did you see rise above shoulder height at pace in some of the clips above? There's also a reason why techniques have evolved over the years to counter genuine pace, anyone who says that the likes of Lee, Akhtar, Walsh, Steyn, Ambrose, Gillespie, Marshall et al were comparable to the pacers in that era are also not worth debating.

And what about the sticky dogs, you do realize that on damp pitches the ball comes slower right, even if it misbehaves? I wonder how many of you actually have played on wet pitches, I have! Also the bowler cannot run in at full tilt, not close even if he is a trundler like 'twas the case back then.

Talking of contemporaries, is Margarent court the best tennis player ever, better than Graf or Fedex? If not then you have your answer, if yes then all the tennis experts who hail Steffi Graf as the best female player, or Fedex as the best male player, are fools according to some of you.

 

[Cric1234]

Safe to say that you're opinion can be disregarded as a joke when you say Sehwag had a poor technique.

There's a reason why bodyline was condemned, it did bring Don down to his true level, btw how many balls did you see rise above shoulder height at pace in some of the clips above? There's also a reason why techniques have evolved over the years to counter genuine pace, anyone who says that the likes of Lee, Akhtar, Walsh, Steyn, Ambrose, Gillespie, Marshall et al were comparable to the pacers in that era are also not worth debating.

And what about the sticky dogs, you do realize that on damp pitches the ball comes slower right, even if it misbehaves? I wonder how many of you actually have played on wet pitches, I have! Also the bowler cannot run in at full tilt, not close even if he is a trundler like 'twas the case back then.

Talking of contemporaries, is Margarent court the best tennis player ever, better than Graf or Fedex? If not then you have your answer, if yes then all the tennis experts who hail Steffi Graf as the best female player, or Fedex as the best male player, are fools according to some of you.

Some would say not me looking at a little clip of Sehwag with no feet movement had he played in the 40s that cricket was a joke but don't realise his shot making ability and hand eye coordination is better than all his peers possibly.
Bradman is so far ahead it's hard to say he's worse than a batsman averaging 45 points less the only explanation is the standard was very different and he was the only good batsman and the rest were tailenders.

 

[R0H1T]

Some would say not me looking at a little clip of Sehwag with no feet movement had he played in the 40s that cricket was a joke but don't realise his shot making ability and hand eye coordination is better than all his peers possibly.
Bradman is so far ahead it's hard to say he's worse than a batsman averaging 45 points less the only explanation is the standard was very different and he was the only good batsman and the rest were tailenders.

The best way to play pace is to stay still at the crease, to counter movement you have to move the feet. Basics of technique 101, look at SRT's clips vs Akhta or Lee, he's almost dead still with only the slightest of trigger movements. With Sehway he was usually done in by movement, since he was an opener, he also liked to flash hard & that's why failed as often as he did. His SR is unmatched in cricketing history, as an opener that is one of the most impressive things about him.

Bradman is so far ahead because he was facing bowlers which were much less greater than the ones seen after the 50's not to mention 20 overs an hour? How many pacers can maintain 80mph at that rate let alone close to 90, also if it's about tracks why don;t you look at Aus 21/9 vs SA & see the whole day's play, pace on fast surfaces is lethal, movement+pace on such surfaces doubly so.

What many of you are conveniently ignoring is the bowling quality & bowling tactics, especially after WW2. So Bradman was better than his next best by 40 runs, were any of Barnes, Bedser, Grimmet, Larwood better than Marshall, Mcgrath, Warne, Murali? Try answering that with just avg or strike rates!

 

[Tusker]

That is a pointless counter. Even in that "less competitive" environment which had fewer nations, why could NOT A SINGLE OTHER BATSMAN from the time manage to not break the 50-60 barrier and go anywhere near Bradman? ATGs of the time like Hammond and Hutton and Compton and Headley all averaged approximately the same as modern ATGs. Shouldn't anyone have done what Bradman did if the fewer countries meant it was easier?

Did I or anybody say anything otherwise about Bradman not being better than his peers ? Bradman was far superior to his peers. no one will dispute that. But to pretend that Bradmans competition was JUST as competitive as todays is just silly.

It is like saying standing out in a class of 10 people in Timbuktu is the same as standing out in a class of 100 in a elite prep school.

And No you cant compare averages from Bradman's time to today and claim equivalence. Here is a good reason why : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f10ZBpAW3bc

watch that clip and tell me if you think that batting technique will work today.

If you DO think it will work then the problem lies in your understanding of cricket.

 

[Cric1234]

Did I or anybody say anything otherwise about Bradman not being better than his peers ? Bradman was far superior to his peers. no one will dispute that. But to pretend that Bradmans competition was JUST as competitive as todays is just silly.

It is like saying standing out in a class of 10 people in Timbuktu is the same as standing out in a class of 100 in a elite prep school.

And No you cant compare averages from Bradman's time to today and claim equivalence. Here is a good reason why : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f10ZBpAW3bc

watch that clip and tell me if you think that batting technique will work today.

If you DO think it will work then the problem lies in your understanding of cricket.

Jack Hobbs is 50 years old in 1932 well past his prime but still looks in good shape unless that's from earlier.
The standard must've been similar to club level it's the only way to explain Bradmans accomplishments and bring him below modern day greats somehow I don't think that's true.

 

[Tusker]

Jack Hobbs is 50 years old in 1932 well past his prime but still looks in good shape unless that's from earlier.
The standard must've been similar to club level it's the only way to explain Bradmans accomplishments and bring him below modern day greats somehow I don't think that's true.

that footage is from 1925/26 and Iam more interested in the technique ... watch this shot : https://youtu.be/f10ZBpAW3bc?t=35s
and this : https://youtu.be/f10ZBpAW3bc?t=1m15s

it has the stamp of an amateur all over it. That footwork and style of play only works against bowling that is generally slow as can be seen from the bowler that is bowling. You will be hard pressed to find anyone who will agree with you that his technique is suitable for modern times.

an even easier way to decide this is by looking at top bowlers from that time ... ALL are so slooow. No way can you you compare the standards.

 

[90MPH]

Bradman also used a bat that looks like a stick compared to the huge weapons used these days.

Also he played on wickets that were uncovered and outfields that were nowhere near as quick.

And it's ridiculous to suggest he only prospered against mainly slow bowlers. Not true at all.

He averaged 99 and the fact that has one has even come close to that stat despite all the advancements since then in the game shows he was definitely is the best batsman ever. Period.

 

[AlizeeFan]

And it's ridiculous to suggest he only prospered against mainly slow bowlers. Not true at all.

What's the truth then? Those bowlers were fast and fast-medium?

 

[Sachin136]

Bradman also used a bat that looks like a stick compared to the huge weapons used these days.

Also he played on wickets that were uncovered and outfields that were nowhere near as quick.

And it's ridiculous to suggest he only prospered against mainly slow bowlers. Not true at all.

He averaged 99 and the fact that has one has even come close to that stat despite all the advancements since then in the game shows he was definitely is the best batsman ever. Period.

This doesn't make sense at all. Why would advancements in the game and cricket becoming more competitive make it easier to average that high?

 

[Junaids]

Same as Bradman:

BY AVERAGING TWICE AS MUCH AS EVERYONE ELSE

 

[Tusker]

This doesn't make sense at all. Why would advancements in the game and cricket becoming more competitive make it easier to average that high?

because he said so ... don't expect logical posts on this topic ... people will believe in the most illogical and weirdest things ( Amateurs > Prod , No difference Playing 110K vs 140K , Mine Work > Gyms , Diet from 1930s superior to todays diet etc etc etc) in order to deal with cognitive dissonance ( look it up )

 

[90MPH]

This doesn't make sense at all. Why would advancements in the game and cricket becoming more competitive make it easier to average that high?

Anything that states that bradman was better than your hero will never make sense.

Here is one example - technology for example studying bowlers on Tv, having laptops where an expert is telling you where the bowlers bowl most of the time.

Did bradman have those luxuries ?? Did he have all those coaches and backroom stuff ??

What about the bats !! He literally used a thin stick back then but we know how bats have been made in the last 20 years. There is no comparison whatsoever.

What about the uncovered pitches and outfields ??

Like I said tendu fans will never be convinced but the fact Bradmans average has never been even challenged means he will be the best. And that too by a distance.

 

[big_gamer007]

There are already countless batsmen who have been better than Bradman however no Bradman will always be the greatest cricketer..

 

[big_gamer007]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rrx2nrgev4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4jLdJiovyM

Doesn't look any better than Gillespie if you ask me.

Did I or anybody say anything otherwise about Bradman not being better than his peers ? Bradman was far superior to his peers. no one will dispute that. But to pretend that Bradmans competition was JUST as competitive as todays is just silly.

It is like saying standing out in a class of 10 people in Timbuktu is the same as standing out in a class of 100 in a elite prep school.

And No you cant compare averages from Bradman's time to today and claim equivalence. Here is a good reason why : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f10ZBpAW3bc

watch that clip and tell me if you think that batting technique will work today.

If you DO think it will work then the problem lies in your understanding of cricket.

People don't understand cricket was not professional during Bradman's era you cannot compare Bradman or anyone else from that era with any modern day batsmen.. Bradman would be averaging less than 20 if he had to face bowlers like Wasim, Shoaib, Marshall, McGrath etc

 

[big_gamer007]

Anything that states that bradman was better than your hero will never make sense.

Here is one example - technology for example studying bowlers on Tv, having laptops where an expert is telling you where the bowlers bowl most of the time.

Did bradman have those luxuries ?? Did he have all those coaches and backroom stuff ??

What about the bats !! He literally used a thin stick back then but we know how bats have been made in the last 20 years. There is no comparison whatsoever.

What about the uncovered pitches and outfields ??

Like I said tendu fans will never be convinced but the fact Bradmans average has never been even challenged means he will be the best. And that too by a distance.

Watch the clips of bradmans batting on YouTube and it's not Sachin even Anwar, Inzimam, Yousuf etc are better "BATSMAN" than Bradman however Bradman will forever be the greatest cricketer to have played the game.. If you know the difference..

 

[90MPH]

Watch the clips of bradmans batting on YouTube and it's not Sachin even Anwar, Inzimam, Yousuf etc are better "BATSMAN" than Bradman however Bradman will forever be the greatest cricketer to have played the game.. If you know the difference..

He's the greatest Test batsman ever. Period and I know the difference.

These batsman you mentioned are better than Bradman only in the one day game, a format that obviously didn't exist then and I will concede he may not have been as successful had there been such a format.

 

[Haz95]

From what I've gathered from most Indian posters, to be better than Bradman you just need to have a batting average of around 25+ in this advanced, professional and modern era.

 

[Tusker]

People don't understand cricket was not professional during Bradman's era you cannot compare Bradman or anyone else from that era with any modern day batsmen.. Bradman would be averaging less than 20 if he had to face bowlers like Wasim, Shoaib, Marshall, McGrath etc

I have seen people here say ( more like pretend ) that Amateur Cricket better and tougher than Professional Cricket

 

[Tusker]

Anything that states that bradman was better than your hero will never make sense.

Here is one example - technology for example studying bowlers on Tv, having laptops where an expert is telling you where the bowlers bowl most of the time.

Did bradman have those luxuries ?? Did he have all those coaches and backroom stuff ??

You conveniently forgot to mention that Bowlers also can analyze the batsmans technique and plan using the same laptop. If coaches would make so much difference then everyone who was coached by Ramakant Achrekar would have played for India. It doesn't quite work that way. In anycase there were coaches in Bradman's time too.

So how do these "luxuries" matter ?

What about the bats !! He literally used a thin stick back then but we know how bats have been made in the last 20 years. There is no comparison whatsoever.

While the modern bats can propel the ball longer and higher they also ensure that edges and mishits generally don't fall short. Its a double edged sword. In any case these bats you talk about are a post early 00s phenomena.

What about the uncovered pitches and outfields ??

Can you tell me how a uncovered pitch is different from a covered pitch if it doesn't rain ? ZERO difference.

Like I said tendu fans will never be convinced but the fact Bradmans average has never been even challenged means he will be the best. And that too by a distance.

See if you can refute the facts instead of hurling ad-hominem. Its one thing to have opinions but quite another to actually defend your opinions based on facts. For what its worth most modern Pakistan greats are also be better than Bradman.

 

[R0H1T]

^oh it;s quite clear that Bradman was a superman when the bowlers were throwing kryptonite at him, to still avg 99.94 against all the odds & beat his nearest rival by a whopping 40 points, on the avg scale, is a feat unparalleled & makes him the GOAT sportsman, let alone just a cricketer. The likes of Dhyanchand, Court, Pele, Bolt et al be damned

 

[Cric1234]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_4QrIdBG1yM

A clip of Fred Trueman bowling one of the best of his era this is when he's past his best.
Somehow cricket has advanced so much such accurate seam and swing bowling would be cannon fodder for modern day batsman I highly doubt it good bowlers were just as accurate and efficient 70 years ago.

 

[R0H1T]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_4QrIdBG1yM

A clip of Fred Trueman bowling one of the best of his era this is when he's past his best.
Somehow cricket has advanced so much such accurate seam and swing bowling would be cannon fodder for modern day batsman I highly doubt it good bowlers were just as accurate and efficient 70 years ago.

Freddy came 24 yrs after Bradman, debuted 4 years after his retirement yo!

 

[Robert]

Sir Donald is passing out of living memory now. I wonder how many people who saw him bat are still alive to tell us?

 

[AlizeeFan]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_4QrIdBG1yM

A clip of Fred Trueman bowling one of the best of his era this is when he's past his best.
Somehow cricket has advanced so much such accurate seam and swing bowling would be cannon fodder for modern day batsman I highly doubt it good bowlers were just as accurate and efficient 70 years ago.

Trueman was first great pacer.

 

[big_gamer007]

He's the greatest Test batsman ever. Period and I know the difference.

These batsman you mentioned are better than Bradman only in the one day game, a format that obviously didn't exist then and I will concede he may not have been as successful had there been such a format.

Lol nope Bradman was the best ever for amateur era by a considerable margin but if you watch clips of his batting he won't last more than 2 matches in modern professional era.. Ofcourse he laid the foundations for the players to come in future and there is a very high probability that if he was born in this era he would have worked out the modern game and still be the best but if you compare "Bradman the batsmen of amateur era and his technique" vs professional bowlers of modern times he won't last much.. Hence his batting isn't the best but he can be regarded as the greatest cricketer..

You just have to watch clips of his batting to realise that his batting style and technique wontnsurvive the modern game..

 

[big_gamer007]

I have seen people here say ( more like pretend ) that Amateur Cricket better and tougher than Professional Cricket

None of them were alive during that time and whatever clips are available online if anyone watched those with an unbiased mind would realise how low the standards for both batting and bowling were at that time compared to professional era.. The lesser said about fielding the better..

It's like Bradman was the first ever computer but after that you have had Pentium 4 or 5 or whatever but people still think the first computer was the best..

 

[Cric1234]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9v-gdlikfko

M Yousuf batting in the nets one of the finest Pakistan has produced but we can make from the first shot how bad he is no doubt.
Such a high backlift and a not so good technique which leads to believe just how he averaged over 50 must be against club level bowlers hmmmm.

 

[Robert]

Trueman was first great pacer.

I'd say Lindwall because he travelled better. Trueman was GOAT in England, for sure.

 

[Haz95]

Lol nope Bradman was the best ever for amateur era by a considerable margin but if you watch clips of his batting he won't last more than 2 matches in modern professional era.. Ofcourse he laid the foundations for the players to come in future and there is a very high probability that if he was born in this era he would have worked out the modern game and still be the best but if you compare "Bradman the batsmen of amateur era and his technique" vs professional bowlers of modern times he won't last much.. Hence his batting isn't the best but he can be regarded as the greatest cricketer..

You just have to watch clips of his batting to realise that his batting style and technique wontnsurvive the modern game..

You've already given a sound reason why to accept he's the greatest BATSMAN ever. Bradman isn't rated the best batsman ever for having some sort of perfect technique that would work in every era (Sehwag for example wouldn't last a second on some of the uncovered pitches but on a spin track, he's ridiculously destructive, like Bradman was on uncovered), he's rated the best ever for being so far ahead of the pack, including the 'ATGs' of his era. It ends there.

You seem like a competent poster, don't band yourself with moronic posters who spew nonsense based on 2min videos and then quickly scream ad hominem due to their lunacy making it futile to engage in arguments.

 

[MMHS]

Trueman was first great pacer.

I think, in a time zero world, first great pacers were Tom Richardson & Charles Turner. Spofforth wasn't the fastest, neither Lohmann or Barnes.

In different era, that baton (of express bowlers) probably was handed like Turner, Richardson, Tobby Cotter, Jack Gregory, Harold Larwood, Ray Lindwall, Fred Truman, DK Lillee, Thompson, Holding, Marshall, Waquar, Shoaib, Bond, Strac.

Most olden days writers consider Truman & RR Lindwall as the first true complete fast bowlers, with Lindwall was probably a little faster.

 

[Sachin136]

You've already given a sound reason why to accept he's the greatest BATSMAN ever. Bradman isn't rated the best batsman ever for having some sort of perfect technique that would work in every era (Sehwag for example wouldn't last a second on some of the uncovered pitches but on a spin track, he's ridiculously destructive, like Bradman was on uncovered), he's rated the best ever for being so far ahead of the pack, including the 'ATGs' of his era. It ends there.

You seem like a competent poster, don't band yourself with moronic posters who spew nonsense based on 2min videos and then quickly scream ad hominem due to their lunacy making it futile to engage in arguments.

To be the best ever, you have to be better than every other player who played the sport. Having a technique that allows them to score runs against bowlers of that era doesn't cut it. The "ATGs of that era" were anything but ATGs. I have a hard time visualizing Hobbs batting over Philander.

If you can't tell from those 10 minute videos how terrible they were, then that's your problem.

Look at the irony, calling out people for using ad hominems while calling others moronic and lunatic yourself.

Bradman and the others were great in that era, and it should be left at that. There's no point comparing them with players after the 1950s because there is a stark difference in quality.

 

[Haz95]

To be the best ever, you have to be better than every other player who played the sport. Having a technique that allows them to score runs against bowlers of that era doesn't cut it. The "ATGs of that era" were anything but ATGs. I have a hard time visualizing Hobbs batting over Philander.

If you can't tell from those 10 minute videos how terrible they were, then that's your problem.

Look at the irony, calling out people for using ad hominems while calling others moronic and lunatic yourself.

Bradman and the others were great in that era, and it should be left at that. There's no point comparing them with players after the 1950s because there is a stark difference in quality.

The quality of cricket has been a bell shaped graph of which peaked from about 80s/90s, which gets lower since and before. As a result, due to todays era also being poor, players like Kohli and Smith unfortunately will never be among the best ever players. This is using your logic.

If anything however, cricket was getting better and better as it advanced up to the 70s-00s. It should technically linearly progress meaning that the era of Kohli and co should technically have to raise the bar but they are not, they are lowering it- this makes them the worst elite players of all the games greats. However, this itself is another completely different argument of which I cba to go in depth in.

I said that those certain posters whinge ad hominem, even though they bring it upon themselves due to arguing such dross and lunacy as their arguments simply don't deserve logical and thoughtful responses.

And btw, I know Bradmans era was poor. BUT, he still bested all the 'ATGs' of his era by far. The pinnacle of cricket was around 70s-00s. Mark my words, it won't ever reach that quality again.

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

By averaging 95 in domestic cricket over a span of 200+ matches
Now people will say he got lullo bowlers in domestic too. Such a lucky man always got easy bowlers and born in an era with no interest in cricket apart from him

 

[ffxter]

People don't understand cricket was not professional during Bradman's era you cannot compare Bradman or anyone else from that era with any modern day batsmen.. Bradman would be averaging less than 20 if he had to face bowlers like Wasim, Shoaib, Marshall, McGrath etc

Maybe read this article then. I'm assuming you know that Jeff Thompson was one of the most feared bowlers when he was playing and not a trundler.


When Donald Bradman faced Jeff Thomson, without pads
ANDREW FAULKNER
The Australian, June 28, 2014

CRICKET tragics are prone to daydreams. The game's ambling pace allows time for flights of fancy.

Would Trumper take the long handle to Warne? How would Clarke deal with Grimmett? Lillee's bouncer versus Ponting's pull-shot anyone?

If only the greatest batsman of them all could be pitted against the fastest bowler.

Quit dreaming. It happened in an Adelaide backyard 36 years ago. Sir Donald Bradman faced Jeff Thomson on January 30, 1978.

And the 70-year-old Bradman carried the day against the Aussie quick, who in 1976 officially topped 160km/h and unofficially bowled much faster.

The day The Don tamed Thommo is told in Ashley Mallett's latest book, The Diggers' Doctor, a biography of well-known veteran of the Korean and Vietnam wars, leading grade paceman and avowed cricket tragic, doctor Donald Beard.

The occasion was a dinner hosted by Beard, now 89, attended by Bradman, Thomson, their wives and a few of Sunil Gavaskar's Indian tourists contesting the series-deciding fifth Test.

On a pre-dinner stroll in Beard's capacious Norwood garden, the guests came upon his teenage sons having a net on their full-length turf pitch (laid by feted Adelaide Oval groundsman Les Burdett).

Matthew Beard asked Bradman if he would like a bat. After some persuading Bradman faced up — no pads, gloves or box. He was armed with nothing but a Stuart Surridge bat.

“If Bradman's batting, Thomson's bowling,” Thomson said.

At first Thomson did little more than roll his arm over. He was understandably afraid of generating the headline: “Thomson kills Bradman in backyard Test."

But he wound up the pace when, wonder of all wonders, Bradman started handling him and the teenagers with ease — in his eighth decade, on a green wicket and without protection.

(Although it is doubtful Thomson could have generated anything like full pace given he had walked off Adelaide Oval clutching his hamstring the day before.) Thomson said what followed was one of the greatest experiences of his cricket life.

“He assumed an air of supreme confidence,” Thomson told Mallett. “It was as if Bradman was wearing a suit of armour; he was invincible. That little old guy in glasses was suddenly transformed into Don Bradman, the human thrashing machine.

“He did not play a false shot in 20 minutes of the most amazing batting I've ever seen.”

Soon it was over and they repaired to the house for dinner, where a distraught Bishan Bedi cursed his rotten luck: He was late to the function and so missed his chance to bowl to Bradman.

There was not another one.

“You know Jeff,” Bradman said over dinner. “I enjoyed that knock, but I'll never do it again.”

He was true to his word.

“And so I realised that I had been the last bowler ever to bowl against Don Bradman.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...s/news-story/cc14464863aae6e8a77dc052d95c71d9

 

[Cric1234]

Bradmans era is not poor otherrwise Sobers performance would've reduced drastically in the 70s.
Coming into international cricket in the mid 50s he struggled initially some of the bowlers were from Bradmans era... his best performances coming in the 60s and the level didn't reduce into the early 70s.
There seems to be no major shift in player performance from the 30s to the 70s and beyond hence D Bradman is without doubt the best ever by a long way if you understand the difficulty of maintaining an average of 100 over a long period and missing 7 prime years of your career.

 

[Tusker]

Maybe read this article then. I'm assuming you know that Jeff Thompson was one of the most feared bowlers when he was playing and not a trundler.


When Donald Bradman faced Jeff Thomson, without pads
ANDREW FAULKNER
The Australian, June 28, 2014

CRICKET tragics are prone to daydreams. The game's ambling pace allows time for flights of fancy.

Would Trumper take the long handle to Warne? How would Clarke deal with Grimmett? Lillee's bouncer versus Ponting's pull-shot anyone?

If only the greatest batsman of them all could be pitted against the fastest bowler.

Quit dreaming. It happened in an Adelaide backyard 36 years ago. Sir Donald Bradman faced Jeff Thomson on January 30, 1978.

And the 70-year-old Bradman carried the day against the Aussie quick, who in 1976 officially topped 160km/h and unofficially bowled much faster.

The day The Don tamed Thommo is told in Ashley Mallett's latest book, The Diggers' Doctor, a biography of well-known veteran of the Korean and Vietnam wars, leading grade paceman and avowed cricket tragic, doctor Donald Beard.

The occasion was a dinner hosted by Beard, now 89, attended by Bradman, Thomson, their wives and a few of Sunil Gavaskar's Indian tourists contesting the series-deciding fifth Test.

On a pre-dinner stroll in Beard's capacious Norwood garden, the guests came upon his teenage sons having a net on their full-length turf pitch (laid by feted Adelaide Oval groundsman Les Burdett).

Matthew Beard asked Bradman if he would like a bat. After some persuading Bradman faced up — no pads, gloves or box. He was armed with nothing but a Stuart Surridge bat.

“If Bradman's batting, Thomson's bowling,” Thomson said.

At first Thomson did little more than roll his arm over. He was understandably afraid of generating the headline: “Thomson kills Bradman in backyard Test."

But he wound up the pace when, wonder of all wonders, Bradman started handling him and the teenagers with ease — in his eighth decade, on a green wicket and without protection.

(Although it is doubtful Thomson could have generated anything like full pace given he had walked off Adelaide Oval clutching his hamstring the day before.) Thomson said what followed was one of the greatest experiences of his cricket life.

“He assumed an air of supreme confidence,” Thomson told Mallett. “It was as if Bradman was wearing a suit of armour; he was invincible. That little old guy in glasses was suddenly transformed into Don Bradman, the human thrashing machine.

“He did not play a false shot in 20 minutes of the most amazing batting I've ever seen.”

Soon it was over and they repaired to the house for dinner, where a distraught Bishan Bedi cursed his rotten luck: He was late to the function and so missed his chance to bowl to Bradman.

There was not another one.

“You know Jeff,” Bradman said over dinner. “I enjoyed that knock, but I'll never do it again.”

He was true to his word.

“And so I realised that I had been the last bowler ever to bowl against Don Bradman.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...s/news-story/cc14464863aae6e8a77dc052d95c71d9

Do people REALLY believe in these fancy stories? Seriously?

 

[Chrish]

Sir Donald is passing out of living memory now. I wonder how many people who saw him bat are still alive to tell us?

Surely you had a chance to chat with those people when you were young ?

 

[Chief Destroyer]

The talent pool was too small to consider Don as the best ever. There's no guarantee he'd be able to translate the performances in the later eras. He's a legend of the game and should be respected but the best ever, nope. The bowlers of his time were a joke.

 

[Sachin136]

The quality of cricket has been a bell shaped graph of which peaked from about 80s/90s, which gets lower since and before. As a result, due to todays era also being poor, players like Kohli and Smith unfortunately will never be among the best ever players. This is using your logic.

If anything however, cricket was getting better and better as it advanced up to the 70s-00s. It should technically linearly progress meaning that the era of Kohli and co should technically have to raise the bar but they are not, they are lowering it- this makes them the worst elite players of all the games greats. However, this itself is another completely different argument of which I cba to go in depth in.

I said that those certain posters whinge ad hominem, even though they bring it upon themselves due to arguing such dross and lunacy as their arguments simply don't deserve logical and thoughtful responses.

And btw, I know Bradmans era was poor. BUT, he still bested all the 'ATGs' of his era by far. The pinnacle of cricket was around 70s-00s. Mark my words, it won't ever reach that quality again.

This post has nothing to do with the discussion. We're comparing Bradman's era to later ones, not the 1990s to now.

I agree that there were more great players from the 70s to the 90s than now, although we can make a better judgement after 5 years.

How are they lowering the bar? Smith averages 60. AB and Kohli have broken tons of LOI records. But yes, if things stay the same way (relatively fewer great bowlers, abundance of flat pitches), then batsmen of this era have to do more to warrant a comparison with great players from the 90s.

This post has nothing to do with the discussion. We're comparing Bradman's era to later ones, not the 1990s to now.

I agree that there were more great players from the 70s to the 90s than now, although we can make a better judgement after 5 years.

How are they lowering the bar? Smith averages 60. AB and Kohli have broken tons of LOI records. But yes, if things stay the same way (relatively fewer great bowlers, abundance of flat pitches), then batsmen of this era have to do more to warrant a comparison with great players from the 90s.

Also, there difference between bowlers in the 70s-90s and now is not as much. Steyn, Anderson, Broad, Johnson, Harris, Rabada, Starc, Hazlewood etc are great bowlers or turning out into great bowlers, and certainly aren't the 120 km/h "express bowlers" from the 1920s.

 

[Cric1234]

The talent pool was too small to consider Don as the best ever. There's no guarantee he'd be able to translate the performances in the later eras. He's a legend of the game and should be respected but the best ever, nope. The bowlers of his time were a joke.

If the bowlers were a joke and they made Sobers look ordinary then one wonders just how bad the standard was in the 60s and 70s when Sobers was averaging 60.

 

[Cric1234]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jLLapepap48

A test match between England and Australia in 1946 you can see full overs the fielding standard is good the bowlers are accurate the fast bowler bowling a good line and length.
The spinner giving it air and turning the ball cant see any big changes 70 years on in 2017 apart from 90mph+ bowlers.

 

[Robert]

Surely you had a chance to chat with those people when you were young ?

My father saw Lindwall and Miller bowl to Hutton and Compton but that was after Bradman retired.

 

[AlizeeFan]

If the bowlers were a joke and they made Sobers look ordinary then one wonders just how bad the standard was in the 60s and 70s when Sobers was averaging 60.

Yes, one can totally imagine the level of bowling being far superior in SL domestic cricket and Aus domestic cricket than international cricket, otherwise how could they make Sanath and Smith make look like ordinary while they feasted on international bowlers.

 

[Cric1234]

Yes, one can totally imagine the level of bowling being far superior in SL domestic cricket and Aus domestic cricket than international cricket, otherwise how could they make Sanath and Smith make look like ordinary while they feasted on international bowlers.

They must have some ability international bowlers modern day ones are well overrated when comparisons are made most are cannon fodder on flat wickets.
Only a handful are genuine great bowlers which means 90% of bowlers batsman face are no great shakes but still no one can average more than 60.

 

[Sachin136]

They must have some ability international bowlers modern day ones are well overrated when comparisons are made most are cannon fodder on flat wickets.
Only a handful are genuine great bowlers which means 90% of bowlers batsman face are no great shakes but still no one can average more than 60.

Overrated just because you said so?

"Only a handful are genuine great bowlers"

Every decade since the 1950s only had a handful of genuine great bowlers. That is given from the definition of "great". Everyone can't be a great bowler.

 

[Haz95]

This post has nothing to do with the discussion. We're comparing Bradman's era to later ones, not the 1990s to now.

I agree that there were more great players from the 70s to the 90s than now, although we can make a better judgement after 5 years.

How are they lowering the bar? Smith averages 60. AB and Kohli have broken tons of LOI records. But yes, if things stay the same way (relatively fewer great bowlers, abundance of flat pitches), then batsmen of this era have to do more to warrant a comparison with great players from the 90s.

This post has nothing to do with the discussion. We're comparing Bradman's era to later ones, not the 1990s to now.

I agree that there were more great players from the 70s to the 90s than now, although we can make a better judgement after 5 years.

How are they lowering the bar? Smith averages 60. AB and Kohli have broken tons of LOI records. But yes, if things stay the same way (relatively fewer great bowlers, abundance of flat pitches), then batsmen of this era have to do more to warrant a comparison with great players from the 90s.

Also, there difference between bowlers in the 70s-90s and now is not as much. Steyn, Anderson, Broad, Johnson, Harris, Rabada, Starc, Hazlewood etc are great bowlers or turning out into great bowlers, and certainly aren't the 120 km/h "express bowlers" from the 1920s.

Lol proof read before. . .

But yeah, I typed the post to show you why saying that Bradmans era was low quality, amateur and etc. etc. is hogwash. I wrote it to show that todays era is also relatively weak, as was Bradmans. Bradman was ridiculously far ahead of the pack, no one in todays era is like that. If you look at my first post on this thread, I stated that someone would need to average only 70 (as opposed to Bradmans 100) to be the GOAT but as usual a thread based on older cricketers was derailed by the usual subjects. Steve Smith if he averaged even 5 points higher would be the bonafide ATG batsman...however his average will come down as he leaves his peak, putting him among the rest of the greats of the game, rather than ridiculously ahead like Bradman. I understand AB and Kohli are breaking this record or that, but look at Hashim Amlas records, do you really think he also warrants comparison with the Anwars, Gangulys and Tendulkars?

Anderson, Broad, Johnson aren't in discussion with 80s/90s ATGs while the latter 3 perhaps. Just like Smith, Kohli and Root can also match the 90s/00s batsmen, so I don't see the point of mentioning that? When the bowlers of the 20s were bowling 120kmh, it was the fastest bowlers had bowled back then so he performed against the respective EVER bests? Those bowlers were bowling at their limit. However now, pacers have now advanced to hit 155/160, so that is where batsmanship is at it's most challenging. Find me innings' of batsman dominating that while maintaining a crazy average, then I will be the first to name a new GOAT. If bowlers fail to bowl that, that's simply unfortunate to batsman of today because we know they have not been tested to their limits.

For what it's worth, I personally rate Viv Richards as the greatest batsman ever because I agree with you that cricket wasn't as high quality then. However, it's simply due to Bradman being anomalous that he is automatically granted GOAT status. Batsmen like Hobbs and co you can argue their greatness title, but Bradman was in their era and was leagues ahead still.

 

[Hasan123]

This thread has basically turned into Indian fans saying Bradman isn't the best of all time whilst Pakistan fans saying he is. Really just puts you off reading this thread tbh.

 

[Cric1234]

An average of 85+ for me plus 90+ in FC where no ATG bowlers are in operation.

 

[Cric1234]

Adam Voges has the best average in today's era but it's unlikely he could maintain it long term.
After that it's Steve Smith who's been enjoying conditions at home and in his prime can he maintain it in his 30s remains to be seen still he's not broken the 60 barrier if that isn't an indicator of the difficulty of an 100 avg nothing will be.

 

[Sachin136]

Lol proof read before. . .

But yeah, I typed the post to show you why saying that Bradmans era was low quality, amateur and etc. etc. is hogwash. I wrote it to show that todays era is also relatively weak, as was Bradmans. Bradman was ridiculously far ahead of the pack, no one in todays era is like that. If you look at my first post on this thread, I stated that someone would need to average only 70 (as opposed to Bradmans 100) to be the GOAT but as usual a thread based on older cricketers was derailed by the usual subjects. Steve Smith if he averaged even 5 points higher would be the bonafide ATG batsman...however his average will come down as he leaves his peak, putting him among the rest of the greats of the game, rather than ridiculously ahead like Bradman. I understand AB and Kohli are breaking this record or that, but look at Hashim Amlas records, do you really think he also warrants comparison with the Anwars, Gangulys and Tendulkars?

Anderson, Broad, Johnson aren't in discussion with 80s/90s ATGs while the latter 3 perhaps. Just like Smith, Kohli and Root can also match the 90s/00s batsmen, so I don't see the point of mentioning that? When the bowlers of the 20s were bowling 120kmh, it was the fastest bowlers had bowled back then so he performed against the respective EVER bests? Those bowlers were bowling at their limit. However now, pacers have now advanced to hit 155/160, so that is where batsmanship is at it's most challenging. Find me innings' of batsman dominating that while maintaining a crazy average, then I will be the first to name a new GOAT. If bowlers fail to bowl that, that's simply unfortunate to batsman of today because we know they have not been tested to their limits.

For what it's worth, I personally rate Viv Richards as the greatest batsman ever because I agree with you that cricket wasn't as high quality then. However, it's simply due to Bradman being anomalous that he is automatically granted GOAT status. Batsmen like Hobbs and co you can argue their greatness title, but Bradman was in their era and was leagues ahead still.

You don't have to be far ahead of your peers to be a great batsman. If by some coincidence, Lara, Sachin, Viv, Ponting, Waugh, Chappell, Gavaskar, Pollock, Dravid, Sangakkara, Kallis, Border etc were all playing in the same era, it wouldn't change their reputation at all.

A lot of it is beyond simple stats. You can tell from watching AB or Kohli that they're easily in the top 5 or top 10 ODI batsmen of all time.

Anderson, Broad, Johnson, Starc etc are not good as the ATGs from the 90s and the 2000s. But the difference isn't that drastic. This era still has bowlers that are devastating on their good days, and easily bowl in the 140s. The difference isn't as much as between Bradman's era (with 120 km/h express bowlers being called greats) and anything after that.

"When the bowlers of the 20s were bowling 120kmh, it was the fastest bowlers had bowled back then so he performed against the respective EVER bests? Those bowlers were bowling at their limit."

Bradman doing well against them is admirable, but we're comparing him with other great batsmen from later eras who faced much better and faster bowlers. Just saying that Bradman faced the best he could have faced doesn't cut it.

"Batsmen like Hobbs and co you can argue their greatness title, but Bradman was in their era and was leagues ahead still."

It is clear that the likes of Hobbs wouldn't bat above Ashwin if they were put into this era. Bradman doing much better them is admirable, and definitely makes him a great of the game, but comparing him to greats from later eras is ridiculous.

 

[Haz95]

You don't have to be far ahead of your peers to be a great batsman. If by some coincidence, Lara, Sachin, Viv, Ponting, Waugh, Chappell, Gavaskar, Pollock, Dravid, Sangakkara, Kallis, Border etc were all playing in the same era, it wouldn't change their reputation at all.

A lot of it is beyond simple stats. You can tell from watching AB or Kohli that they're easily in the top 5 or top 10 ODI batsmen of all time.

Anderson, Broad, Johnson, Starc etc are not good as the ATGs from the 90s and the 2000s. But the difference isn't that drastic. This era still has bowlers that are devastating on their good days, and easily bowl in the 140s. The difference isn't as much as between Bradman's era (with 120 km/h express bowlers being called greats) and anything after that.

"When the bowlers of the 20s were bowling 120kmh, it was the fastest bowlers had bowled back then so he performed against the respective EVER bests? Those bowlers were bowling at their limit."

Bradman doing well against them is admirable, but we're comparing him with other great batsmen from later eras who faced much better and faster bowlers. Just saying that Bradman faced the best he could have faced doesn't cut it.

"Batsmen like Hobbs and co you can argue their greatness title, but Bradman was in their era and was leagues ahead still."

It is clear that the likes of Hobbs wouldn't bat above Ashwin if they were put into this era. Bradman doing much better them is admirable, and definitely makes him a great of the game, but comparing him to greats from later eras is ridiculous.

Yes, I agree. In terms of batsmanship, there were many great batsmen in the 00s period. HOWEVER, to be the greatest of all time, you must perform at superhuman levels, past what even great batsmen do. You should really know that, understand that. Viv did superhuman level stuff, Bradman did superhuman level stuff (talking for their respective eras), which is why I rate them the best. I believe Viv is ultimately the best due to being in a very advanced era too (as opposed to Bradman), but I can see why Bradmans rated the bonafide best.

Starc is better than ATGs of 90s/00s in ODIs but he's merely good in tests. . .The other lot mentioned have had moments where they match their preceeding era bowlers but overall can't roll with them (i.e. Hussey the batsman).

You also need to understand, cricket has had a few revolutionisers, i.e. William Grace, Bradman, Richards... William Grace is rated one of the best ever too, however Bradmans era was far more competetive. Does this mean I won't accept that Grace is an ATG, perhaps even GOAT cricketer? Just as the Viv/Lara/Tendu era is far more advanced to Bradman. This is what I mean by Bradman doing the best when cricket (back then) was at it's highest level, and then Some to pulverise the other respective greats of his era.

I think the crux of what your argument is that the era of Bradman was weak, and that cricket truly became a proper world sport with several competetive nations post late 70s. If that is why you will never rate Bradman, I guess we'll just agree to disagree there. I personally too sometimes not rate him ahead of Viv or even Lara/Tendulkar for that matter...my goalposts change depending on the day.

One thing however still won't change, Bradman still has the most peculiar and anomalous statistic in the history of cricket. For that, he will always be in arguments for being the greatest ever batsman.

 

[Cric1234]

It's only arguable that Viv is better than Sobers and we haven't reached Bradman levels of performance.
How can it be a far more advanced era when Sobers was still playing when Viv started and averaged 7 points more it's just an opinion not backed up by facts.
All eras overlap that's how you get from Bradman to Sobers to Viv to Sachin Lara to Sangakara and now Smith Root etc.
There is zero evidence of a sudden improvement or decline in performance of batsman apart from Bradman from the 40s to now.
Just by looking at a few clips and saying he's a bit slower or he's not bowling a certain way they come to a conclusion that this is basically a different standard altogether.
That's why a batsman would still have to average 30+ points more to be considered better let's see them achieve that just in FC cricket then we can say he comes to Bradman.

 

[Tusker]

It's only arguable that Viv is better than Sobers and we haven't reached Bradman levels of performance.
How can it be a far more advanced era when Sobers was still playing when Viv started and averaged 7 points more it's just an opinion not backed up by facts.
All eras overlap that's how you get from Bradman to Sobers to Viv to Sachin Lara to Sangakara and now Smith Root etc.
There is zero evidence of a sudden improvement or decline in performance of batsman apart from Bradman from the 40s to now.
Just by looking at a few clips and saying he's a bit slower or he's not bowling a certain way they come to a conclusion that this is basically a different standard altogether.
That's why a batsman would still have to average 30+ points more to be considered better let's see them achieve that just in FC cricket then we can say he comes to Bradman.

Once again - why are there no "fast" bowlers in the modern era who can bowl at 100-120K with keeper standing up and yet be able to pick wickets by the boat loads ? What do YOU think is the primary reason for that ?

Examples: Bedser 236 wkts at under 25, Bowes 100+ wkts at 22 !!

 

[Tusker]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jLLapepap48

A test match between England and Australia in 1946 you can see full overs the fielding standard is good the bowlers are accurate the fast bowler bowling a good line and length.
The spinner giving it air and turning the ball cant see any big changes 70 years on in 2017 apart from 90mph+ bowlers.

Can you post footage from the current ERA that *YOU* feel is being played at the same standards in the clip you posted from 1946 ?

 

[Cric1234]

Let's keep it simple we're England or Australia of 30s 40s 50s better than the minnows of today Bangladesh from 2000-2010 and Zimbabwe against these teams the modern day greats could possibly average 80-90 over 40 50 matches.

 

[Cric1234]

The best batsman Bangladesh produced in the first 5-10 years averaged 30 best bowler 38 (2 matches) or 40 with a bigger sample size.
The question is is Habibul Bashar better then Hammond Hutton?
Are the bowlers better or the same level as Larwood Lindwall Bedser Bowes Laker O'reilly?

 

[Tusker]

The best batsman Bangladesh produced in the first 5-10 years averaged 30 best bowler 38 (2 matches) or 40 with a bigger sample size.
The question is is Habibul Bashar better then Hammond Hutton?
Are the bowlers better or the same level as Larwood Lindwall Bedser Bowes Laker O'reilly?

Because they don't get to play against fast bowlers with max speed of 120k and that's just one aspect of it. I have written about other aspects earlier in this thread and other Bradman thread.

BTW no answers to any questions?

 

[Cric1234]

It's just the speed of bowlers that keeps getting repeated that's why I said since modern day greats can average high only against minnows we should compare them to England and Australia.

 

[Chrish]

Anyways here is the post made by someone whom I have admired for a very long period of time. I don't agree 100% but it's a fascinating opinion to read. I will copy and paste the original content:

On how good was Bradman

Its wrong to run down Bradman's record on the basis of the changes in the game. Firstly since changes have been in both directions (favourable and unfavourable to the batsmen) and secondly since we started with the premise that we are comparing him with reference to his record versus those of his contemporaries this arguement is invalid.

Statistics are not a perfect criteria but there is no more appropriate one available.. Secondly, if there is one instance where statistics reveal much more than they hide, it is Bradman's overwhelming career record. In any event there is enough written matter available from those who played and studied the game in addition to his stats. Benaud is still around and he has seen him play. I have had the pleasure of talking at length to two Indian cricketers who played against him and the opinion is totally unconditional on his being a phenomenon.

Fallibility against fast short pitched bowling being a weakness is unadulterated b/s.. The whole case is built around the bodyline series. No one in those times could counter it. McCabe's brilliant innings notwithstanding. To say that modern batsmen would have fared better is to display utter ignorance of what bodyline was. Modern batsmen are protected by laws (let alone helmets) which outlaw the bowling as well as render bodyline tactics totally untenable with fielding restriction behind square. So forget it.

Since he played mainly against England, his record is somehow devalued. . Unadulterated b/s. England had been playing Test cricket for 50 years. The Golden age of cricket has just passed when he made his debut. The game and its techniques were fully evolved and are not greatly changed to this day. So much so, Bradman's art of cricket is still the best cricket coaching book ever (slight unorthocoxy in grip and off side driving notwithstanding). His record against England as someone just pointed out is great. This was an England where almost the entire young male population was available and enthusiastic for a cricketing career. England was a much more difficult opposition than the aggregate of today's ten test sides.

He was the greatest batsman, the greatest cricketer and perhaps (the qualification for want of knowledge of all sports in the world) the greatest sportsman the world has seen.

His critics have always existed. Their case is built around his slightly unorthodox technique (very orthodox by today's standards), his preference AND ability to pull and cut deliveries that did not appear to be short pitched enough (thereby making him appear to be not a classical batsman like say Hobbs), his apparent selfishness (almost all ruthlessly focused sportsmen have suffered from this accusation) and the freak coincidences which are bound to be there in a twenty year long career. Like his being Bedser's Bunny.

Will see another like him
Highly improbable. Why ?

He clearly had exceptional physical attributes of eyesight and a hand eye coordination that allowed him to spot the ball earlier than everyone else and move into position to make a mockery of the intended length of the delivery.

PLUS he had a phenomenal intellect which allowed him to dissect the game and adapt to his own modified version of the classical technique of the day and hone it to perfection. A great example is his extremely dominant right hand while cover driving and his terrific ability to keep these drives, always on the carpet which is extremely difficult unless onje always plays the ball that fraction of a bit later.

PLUS he was the first to really understand the term 'percentage' cricket. To him it did not mean cutting out risky shots. He redefined what was risky according to his own extraordinary abilities. He pulled at slightly short of a length deliveries since he felt he had a much better probability of pulling it off than getting out to it. The fact that others couldnt do the same made them proclaim that he would be a disaster in England. One tour and 974 test runs by the 22 year old made it clear this was one disaster never going to happen. He changed his game again when he toured in 1948 to adjust to his age but still managed a very healthy performance.

PLUS he devised totally unique and physically extraordinarily demanding methods of practice for himself from an early age and mastered them. Imagine hitting a golf ball against a round stake and hitting it at a point so that it came back to you and did not have to run to fetch it. Then imagine trying it with a stump. The mind boggles.

Add these physical attributes, the intellect to study the game and dissect it like a surgeon, the years of mind boggling training regimens and to this concoction add the amazing mental strength, unwavering focus and ambition to be the best in the world from a very early age and its clear to see that such a combination would truly make for very long odds indeed of a repeat.

 

[Cric1234]

Can you post footage from the current ERA that *YOU* feel is being played at the same standards in the clip you posted from 1946 ?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w2hvz2jw0RI

50 years on I doubt this match is of a much higher standard than the one in the 40s.

 

[Cric1234]

From the match above one could say McGrath and Warne 2 all time greats are better bowlers than the ones in Bradmans otherwise it's doubtful whether the other ones are really better.

 

[Tusker]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w2hvz2jw0RI

50 years on I doubt this match is of a much higher standard than the one in the 40s.

From the match above one could say McGrath and Warne 2 all time greats are better bowlers than the ones in Bradmans otherwise it's doubtful whether the other ones are really better.

In the 1946 clip can you show me ONE Single ball from bowled at speeds that Joe Angel, Devon and Even McGrath is bowling at ? Can you show me one single ball that even spun half as much as the one that Warne bowled Ramprakash through his legs ?

 

[Tusker]

BUMP

and of course undisputed greatest of all time?

considering the multiple formats today and the amount of games against so many different opponents it is impossible for anyone to average more than 99 in test cricket

the don himself would have averaged lower than that in a professional era

so what would it take for a modern batsman to be considered superior?

60+ average in both tests and odis and a very good (50) average in t20s as well as over 40 centuries in both formats?

or even that would not suffice because his test average would still be 30 points lower??

Kohli now avgs 94 @ S/R of 100 in his last 50 ODIs and 60 avg in his last 50 Tests playing against far superior and tougher opponents under far more varied conditions and opponents than Bradman ever did.

Thats right there nearly Bradmanesque achievement in ODIs under far more difficult circumstances.

 

[big_gamer007]

Every modern day batsmen is a better batsman than the Don, even Umar Akmal is a better "batsman".

However the Don will always remain as one of the greatest "Cricketer" if not the greatest.

 

[Ab Fan]

BUMP



Kohli now avgs 94 @ S/R of 100 in his last 50 ODIs and 60 avg in his last 50 Tests playing against far superior and tougher opponents under far more varied conditions and opponents than Bradman ever did.

Thats right there nearly Bradmanesque achievement in ODIs under far more difficult circumstances.

Does he avg 94 in his last 50 ODIs?? That's insane. I want numbers here.

 

[Tusker]

Does he avg 94 in his last 50 ODIs?? That's insane. I want numbers here.

here you go :

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...=results;type=batting;view=reverse_cumulative

Match#50	50	13	3497	160*	94.51	3484	100.37

 

[austerlitz]

If you argue batting was easier then,then all batsmen from that era should average pretty high.Yet only 5 other batsmen from the whole era between 1920-1960 average above 50.

Hammond 58
Hobbs 57
Sutcliffe 60
George Headley 60
Hutton 58

None of them are anywhere close to bradman with 99.9.Which tells you the guy was a freak.
A modern batsman to me would have to average a minimum 70 over 10 years to be his equal.Remember bradman played only 52 tests but lost several years to war and those tests were spread over 20 years.Even at the age of 40 in 1948 in his last tour of england he was scoring centuries for fun.

 

[Tusker]

If you argue batting was easier then,then all batsmen from that era should average pretty high.

Explain logically why that is such a obvious thing that we should accept as fact.

 

[austerlitz]

Explain logically why that is such a obvious thing that we should accept as fact.

Well its obvious,if batting on the whole was easier then it should have been easier for everybody not just bradman.Then many batsmen of that era should have high averages,no?Since batting was easier.But only 5 guys in the 40 year period between 1920-60 average above 50(50-60 incidentally being the general standard of great batsmen throughout,fell by a few points during 70s,80s and 90s,picked up by a few points from 2000s,but never more than a few points).

But one guy,only one has such a massive statistical spike.A complete abberation.No one else has come even close.And it wasn't done in a few year purple patch,but in tests played over 20 years.Even if you argue quality and pace of bowlers was not that high then you have to take into account - larwood who was certainly not slow and sent several to the hospital and bodyline (with a seven man leg side field and bradman still averaged 57 and was not once hit).Add poor bats,uncovered pitches,long grounds,and the necessity to juggle a dayjob along with playing.Not as easy as it might sound.Ultimately the proof is in the fact that no one else in that era ever came close.Everyone else is more or less in the same bracket of 50-60.The gold standard.Only one is a freak.